411 S.W.3d 873
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Kennedy pled guilty in Sept 2001 to two counts of second-degree statutory rape in Stoddard County.
- In Oct 2012 Kennedy petitioned to remove his name from the sex offender registry under section 589.400.7 (SORA).
- Kennedy testified at a Nov 19, 2012 hearing that he committed the offenses at age 29, was not violent, had no subsequent arrests, and was not a public-safety threat.
- The trial court granted the petition and ordered removal of Kennedy’s name from the registry on Nov 21, 2012.
- The Missouri Attorney General and MSHP appealed, arguing Kennedy remains on the registry due to federal registration requirements and that removal should not be allowed because of a third offense and federal law.
- Kennedy acknowledges a third offense (deviate sexual assault) makes him ineligible for removal for that offense, but the appeal concerns removal for the two 2001 offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of the Attorney General | AG may represent state interests and challenge registry order. | Kennedy contends AG lacks standing to appeal. | AG has standing; proper party to appeal. |
| Removal under SORA given federal registration | Kennedy remains on registry due to independent federal SORNA obligation. | If federally required to register, Kennedy cannot be removed under 589.400.7. | Kennedy not eligible for removal; federal obligation triggers Missouri SORA registration and precludes removal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) (standard of review for court-tried cases)
- Otte v. Edwards, 370 S.W.3d 898 (Mo.App. E.D. 2012) (statutory interpretation and application considerations)
- Fogle v. State, 295 S.W.3d 504 (Mo.App. W.D. 2009) (Attorney General standing to represent state interests)
- Keathley, 290 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. banc 2009) (SORA AND SORNA interplay; independent federal registration triggers Missouri duty)
- Toelke, 389 S.W.3d 165 (Mo. banc 2012) (SORA uses current status of federal registration obligation)
- Grieshaber v. Fitch, 409 S.W.3d 435 (Mo.App. E.D. 2013) (analysis of SORNA interaction with state registry)
- Roe v. Replogle, 408 S.W.3d 759 (Mo. banc 2013) (consolidated principles on sex offender registry issues)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Zumwalt, 825 S.W.2d 906 (Mo.App. S.D. 1992) (binding authority on standing and state interests)